Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marriage is not about "love." The basis of marriage is creating a stable society in which a man and a woman enter into marriage with the expectation they will have children and raise them to be contributors to society. Rinse, repeat, rinse repeat...
Yes, many people marry for love. But the right to marry has NOTHING to do with love or sexual attraction. So your need to change the purpose of marriage so you can have societies "stamp of approval" is absolutely seeking special rights.
No one is dictating morality, except for those seeking special treatment.
Does SS marriage affect me? Why does it matter whether it affects me? I am not that selfish. I do see how it is affecting private business owners whose religious freedoms are being trampled. I see how it creates obligations on society based solely on the special rights of a select group of people who demand rights from others (free religious expression). So whether or not your SS marriage affects me personally is not the issue, it is whether your demands for special rights affects society as a whole.
I love "end of discussion!" LOL - it is right up their with "the science is settled." Since you proclaim "end of discussion!" doesn't mean anything more than you are frustrated because I am not bullied by your name calling and ridicule. I am strong in my personal value system and not ashamed of it. I know I am none of those names you have called me, because I disagree with you.
I have compassion for your desire to get governmental approval for your relationship, and I do not think you should be denied any protections under the law based on your sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with your demand for special treatment under the law.
And many heterosexual couples do not, or can not, have children. While many homosexual couples DO have and raise children. Do our families not benefit from the stability provided by marriage?
Not one law regarding marriage even mentions the expectation of the couple having children. Not one of the benefits of marriage require children.
The whole "procreation" thing has been shot down by every single court that has hear a SSM case.
Does it really make your position more valid if you write people off as "unreasonably-conservative whackadoodles" with "vapor lock" having "considerably more hang-ups in play here"?
You really do not see the irony in your claims of persecution and ridicule by society, when you use such invectives about people who disagree with you?
Perhaps you might want to check your hypocrisy.
Not hypocrisy.
Difference is that your wanting to barre people equal rights is based on who they are and not what they do, even if the two tie together.
You are being mocked for making outrageous statements over and over again, but nobody is saying that you do not deserve equal rights. That is a consistent position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrett
In the case of the Bible, it doesn't condemn homosexuals, but it does condemn homosexual behavior... if that makes any sense to you.
Basically it's the idea that you may be born with certain urges, but that acting on them is sinful.
I said it early on, but it still continues to happen in discussions.
Is it that laws dictate morality for people? If you believe being homosexual is a sin or otherwise morally wrong, will you change your opinion based on if it's legal or not?
Likewise, is it the opinion of those on the affirmative side that the legality of same-sex marriage will determine if it's legal for people to have religious or moral beliefs that don't fall in line with that law?
From my perspective, I don;t care if others have a religious or moral objection to my marriage. As far as I know there is no law that says that everything that is legal must be considered moral by everyone else. How could that even be enforced? Morals are subjective, so there is no way to make anyone believe that anything is moral or immoral.
Does it really make your position more valid if you write people off as "unreasonably-conservative whackadoodles" with "vapor lock" having "considerably more hang-ups in play here"?
You really do not see the irony in your claims of persecution and ridicule by society, when you use such invectives about people who disagree with you?
Perhaps you might want to check your hypocrisy.
I have already made it quite clear that my opinion of homophobes is the same as my opinion about holocaust deniers, moan landing hoaxers, and supply-side economists. I will add the Ku Klux Klan to that list. There are other groups I would add, at the risk of proving Godwin right.
These groups all share one basic trait -- this country would be far better off without them. I'm not in favor of rounding them all up and pushing them into a caldera, because I am not like them. But it's safe to say that this country would be better off without such groups. They drag us down. They are ballast. We would do well to jettison this ballast.
So I really could not care less if their feelings are hurt when they are called out on their blind stupidity.
From my perspective, I don;t care if others have a religious or moral objection to my marriage. As far as I know there is no law that says that everything that is legal must be considered moral by everyone else. How could that even be enforced? Morals are subjective, so there is no way to make anyone believe that anything is moral or immoral.
The fear I've heard is that churches would be banned from teaching that homosexual behavior is immoral and sinful, and would be subject to arrest if they did so. That's the only situation I can think of where it could be enforced.
Just references to a man laying with another man, etc. The idea of condemning the individual is covered by the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story, but people seem to think that it doesn't apply in this special case, for some reason.
The fear I've heard is that churches would be banned from teaching that homosexual behavior is immoral and sinful, and would be subject to arrest if they did so. That's the only situation I can think of where it could be enforced.
Which is a completely unfounded fear since churches are protected from teaching or doing anything that they choose not to by the 1st amendment.
There is no way to enforce any law that would require churches to teach or do something against their beliefs.
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
lol @ the person claiming that any good moral system barres LGBT people from equal rights.
Where is the morality in that?
Based on what I know I'm not even convinced that the Bible/Quran/etc. are anti-homosexuality if you want to take that weird stance considering they both just talk about specific acts and not homosexuals. I'm not too familiar with the Bible but IIRC the Quran has like seven verses about sodomy (in the story of Sodom) and that's it. Based on what I know about the Bible it doesn't really condemn homosexuals either (correct me if I'm wrong). People are just cherry picking certain verses about certain acts that can be interpreted a certain way to justify their own bizarre beliefs.
Edit: Loriina, why have you decided that 'marriage' can only have that definition. Furthermore, what is your opinion of a heterosexual couple getting married if they don't or can't have kids? And there really is no basis for your 'special rights' ranting when as everyone has pointed out again and again, they would not be receiving more rights than heterosexual couples. The same does not equal more lol.
If you are claiming that a moral society is one that denies equality under the law, you are twisting me words and their intent.
I am not familiar with the New Testament or the Quran either.
I love how so many posters keep saying "I decided this" "I require people to think that"... who know I had so much impact and power
I haven't "decided marriage can only have [that] definition." I don't have an opinion on whether childless heteros getting married. THAT is not the issue.
So, expressing my point of view and providing a clear explanation is what you deem "ranting." Good to know.
The issue is that the fundamental understanding of marriage from the beginning of time (hyperbole due to exasperation over repeating the same logic over and over) and the fundamental understanding within Western Culture (see, I am just following those norms established by civilizations and generation that came before me) has been that it is a union between a man and woman.
If you step back and put your emotions aside for a moment, and this does require some intellectual honesty, all societies have always deemed marriage to be between one man and one woman. Yes, there are societies currently and historically where marriage involved one man and more than one woman, but the underlying and defining characteristics of what societies deems marriage have involved the uniting of members of the opposite sex.
The fact that gays want to change that based solely on the fact that they find the opposite sex "icky" (hat tip jjrose) is clearly a request for special treatment under the law. If a group were to demand that polygamy be reinstated as their "right" to marry, and is protected under the 14th Amendment, I would argue (or rant in your opinion) that the group is seeking special treatment under the law based on their desire to have society recognize their preference for several wives.
Which is a completely unfounded fear since churches are protected from teaching or doing anything that they choose not to by the 1st amendment.
There is no way to enforce any law that would require churches to teach or do something against their beliefs.
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
but how else will they keep the hysteria going if they don't fan the flames with ridiculous might (not) happen scenarios??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
